ART Giao Quynh Tran Pedagogical Implications of Findings Full text
PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS
ABOUT PRAGMATIC AND DISCOURSE TRANSFER
FOR L2 LEARNERS AND ｔｅａｃｈｊｾＮｓ＠
Giao Quynb Tran
The University of Melbourne
[email protected]
j
Abstract
of
Pragmatic and discourse transfer herein refers to the ｩｮｦｬｵ･｣ｾ＠
first language (Ll) and culture on second language (L2) performance.
In my previous research (Iran, 2004c, 2006a), I found a number of
conditions of pragmatic and discourse transfer, which are factors necessary for pragmatic and discourse transfer to take place. In this paper, I will discuses several pedagogical implications of fmdings about
conditions of pragmatic and discourse transfer for L2 learners and
teachers.
tlie
Key words: pragmatics, discourse transfer, cross-cultural interaction.
INTRODUCTION
My previous research (Tran, 2004c, 2006a) showed that Vietnamese
learners of English transferred the Ll frequency of use and combination of
compliment response (CR) strategies into their L2 performance. When responding to a compliment, the Vietnamese normally neither use nor include an "Appreciation Token" in their CRs. They tend to deny or downplay
the compliment instead. CRs by Vietnamese speakers of English exhibited
this tendency as a result of pragmatic and discourse transfer. It is acknowledged that pragmatic and discourse transfer does not always cause miscommunication because '"negative' transfer equals 'difference from L2',
but 'difference from L2 equals miscommunication' is a non sequitur"
(Kasper 1992, p. 221 ). However, although the Vietnamese speakers' intention was to be modest and polite to the other interlocutor, some Australians
failed to perceive it as such. For example, one third of the Australian English speakers interviewed perceived CRs which exhibited pragmatic and
discourse transfer by the Vietnamese interlocutors as an expression of discomfort, lack of confidence and/or absence of trust in the sincerity of compliments. On the contrary, Vietnamese speakers of English reported having
143
English-EduVol.7, No.2, July2007: 143-158
experienced none of the above. So although pragmatic and discourse transfer did not cause a breakdown in communication, it led to the NSs'
misperception, which is also a consequence of miscommunication, of the
L2 speakers.
In order to prevent such instances of misunderstanding in cross-cultural interaction, the learners need to know about cross-cultural differences
between the L1 and L2 as well as the L2 norms in realizing communicative
acts. L2 speakers in this study were at the advanced level ofL2 proficiency
but they still transferred their L 1 pragmatic and discourse norms into their
L2 performance. Therefore, cross-cultural differences and L2 pragmatics
and discourse need to be learnt and taught. The question is how to do so.
EXPOSURE AND NOTICING ASASOURCEOFLEARNING
As found in my previous research (Tran, 2004c, 2006a), one of the
conditions that can inhibit pragmatic and discourse transfer is exposure.
Exposure in the senses of length of stay in the target language country and
amount of input seems to be able to reduce transfer. This implies that the L2
learners should actively increase their exposure to the L2. While it is not
always feasible to learn an L2 in the target country, it is possible to increase
the amount ofL2 input one is exposed to. Moreover, long duration of stay
in the L2 country does not necessarily entail improvement of L2 proficiency and pragmatic and discourse knowledge. So learners should engage
in activities that enhance their exposure to the L2 input because "without
input, acquisition cannot take place" (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001, p. 31 ). L2learners in the target country, for instance Vietnamese ESL learners in Australia,
should make full use of their learning environment to expose themselves to
the target language in communication in order to advance not only their L2
proficiency but also their L2 pragmatic and discourse knowledge. Although
those who learn an Li in their native country, for example Vietnamese EFL
learners in Vietnam/may use textbooks as a source of learning about L2
pragmatics and discourse, it is not recommended because "in general, textbooks cannot be counted on as a reliable source of pragmatic input for
classroom language learners" (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001, p. 25). Instead, EFL
learners can increase their exposure to the L2 media.
The L2 media is a useful source ofL2 pragmatic and discourse input
for both L2 learners in their home country and those in the target language
country. As Rose (2001) compared compliments and CRs from forty American contemporary films and naturally occurring ones, he found that "film
data corresponds fairly closely to authentic data. particularly for major
144
Pedagogical Implications of Findings About Pragmatic and Discourse Transfer (Giao Quynh Tran)
pragmalinguistic categories" (p. 321). Film data was found to be more representative of authentic speech pragmalinguistically than sociopragmatically.
Although the media in general or films in particular do not complete the
source of L2 pragmatic and discourse input, they contribute considerably
to the enrichment and accessibility of this source.
Increased exposure to the L2 input alone, however, is not sufficient.
The learners can hardly acquire L2 knowledge by being merely passively
exposed to the L2 input. Input needs to be processed and there have been
cognitive perspectives on input processing. Gass (2003) remarked that
The important role of input has not diminished over the years; what has
changed, however, is the conceptualization of how individuals process the
input and how the input interacts with the mental capacities of those learning
a language (first or second) (p. 229).
In order for input to be processed efficiently or to have a role in
learning, learners need to notice information to be acquired in the input.
According to the Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990, 1993a, 1993b, 1994,
1995, 2001 ), input becomes intake, which is what the learners actually know
and can use, only when they notice it. Noticing "is the necessary and sufficient condition for the conversion of input into intake" (Schmidt, 1993a, p.
209). Schmidt's strong claim that there is no learning without attention was
challenged by Gass (1997) and Schachter et al. (cited in Gass, 2003). However, it is generally accepted that selective attention plays a significant role
in language learning. Long's Interaction Hypothesis (1996), which says that
negotiation of meaning in interaction between NSs and non-native speakers (NNSs) and between NNSs facilitates language acquisition, highlights
the role of selective attention. Gass (1997) also considered such attention
as "one of the crucial mechanisms" in input processing (p. 132). So Schmidt
(1998, 2001) modified his assertion and later acknowledged that learning
may take place without learners' awareness but such learning does not make
a major contribution to L2 learning.
When applying the notion of attention, also known as noticing, to L2
pragmatic development, Schmidt (1993) affirmed that
For the learning of pragmatics in a second language, attention to linguistic
fonns, functional meanings, and the relevant contextual features is required.
I also claim that learners experience their learning, that attention is subjectively experienced as noticing, and that the attentional threshold for noticing
is the same as the threshold for learning (p. 35).
Schmidt's (1993a, 1993b, 1995, 1998, 2001) application of the Noticing Hypothesis to the acquisition of L2 pragmatics was supported by
145
English•Edu Vol.?, No.2, July 2007: 143-158
DuFon (2000). According to them, the learners can gain L2 pragmatic and
discourse knowledge through exposure to the L2 if they attend to and notice pragmatic and discourse features in the L2 input. When the learners
consciously process L2 pragmatic and discourse information, "environment
may not be the most important factor accounting for learners' pragmatic
awareness" and "both EFLand ESL learners were aware of pragmatic infelicities" (Niezgoda and Roever, 2001, p. 76). It is thus important that the L2
learners observe and take notice of how differently communicative acts are
realized in the L1 and L2 cultures as well as what pragmatic and discourse
norms normally govern the performance ofL2 communicative acts. Sociocultural knowledge can also be increased by noticing how sociocultural
norms are expressed and practised cross-culturally.
This type of conscious noticing turns proficiency from potentially
facilitating transfer to being capable of preventing it. Advanced proficiency
is a facilitative condition of pragmatic and discourse transfer because the
learners have the L2 tool to realize transfer. However, if the learners consciously notice pragmatic and discourse features in the input they are exposed to, their L2 proficiency boosts comprehension of the L2 input and, as
a result, enhances their L2 pragmatic competence. Accordingly, pragmatic
and discourse transfer can be reduced.
Exposure to and noticing the L2, however, is not the only source of
learning. Besides instruction in the classroom, the learners should also utilize the source of knowledge that they process, together with their universal
and L 1 pragmatic and discourse knowledge. According to Bialystok's ( 1993,
1994) two-dimensional model of L2 proficiency development, in the case
of adult learners, the development of pragmatic knowledge has been mostly
achieved. This prediction was supported by Koike (1989) and Hassall (1997).
Unlike children acquiring their mother tongue, "adult learners get a considerable amount of L2 pragmatic knowledge for free. This is because some
pragmatic knowledgejs universal" (Kasper and Rose, 2001, p. 4 ). So learners come to the L2 ldnning process with available universal and Ll pragmatic and discourse knowledge which they can rely on. However, this does
not mean that the learners should transfer the total system of pragmatics
and discourse in their Ll into their L2, because not all of the L1 pragmatic
and discourse features are transferable. It just means that they can apply
what, at least to their perception, may be applied across cultures.
It should also be noted that learning greatly benefits from and is most
useful in practice. Frequent practice enhances the automatization and acquisition of pragmatic and discourse knowledge. Moreover, ample practice
means increased output, and output (i.e. language production or use) is es146
Pedagogical Implications of Findif19S About Pragmatic ;,nd Discourse Transier (Giao Quynh Tran)
sential to language development (Swain 1985, 1995; Swain and Lapkin,
1995, 1998). Although Swain's argument for the need for output was based
on syntax and morphology, it can reasonably be applied to other domains of
language including pragmatics and discourse. Therefore, learners should
also actively take part in interaction with a diversity of speakers to put both
their L2 skills and their cross-cultural knowledge to use, thereby improving
and maintaining both.
So on the L2 learners' part, they can develop their knowledge of
cross-cultural differences and L2 pragmatics and discourse by actively increasing exposure to the L2 and noticing L2 pragmatic and discourse features in the input. However, not all learners are good at detecting crosscultural differences or noticing salient L2 pragmatic and discourse features.
Moreover, the learning task becomes more difficult for adult learners because NSs, although being possibly willing to indicate learners' linguistic
failure to help them improve their L2, rarely point out learners' pragmatic
failure. Nor do NSs provide them with the feedback as to what is considered appropriate or polite in the L2 culture. Therefore, on the L2 teachers'
part, they should bring this type of knowledge to the learners' notice in
order to assist them in their L2 pragmatic development.
EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION IN PRAGMATICS AND DISCOURSE
Although the essential role of pedagogical instruction in such L2
linguistic components as grammar, vocabulary, phonology and so on has
long been established, the need for L2 pragmatics and discourse teaching
has not yet been as widely recognized. Indeed, pragmatic and discourse
instruction is crucial to the acquisition ofL2 pragmatics and discourse. As
found in Tran (2004c, 2006a), instruction in pragmatics and discourse in
teaching methodologies can develop learners' L2 pragmatic and discourse
knowledge and thus prevent pragmatic and discourse transfer. This finding
is supported by previous research by Billmyer (1990). She found that Japanese learners of English who received formal instruction in American English norms of complimenting produced more native-like compliments and
CRs than those who did not. Bardovi-Harlig's (200 1) review of research
into instruction in pragmatics up to date also lends support to this finding.
She found that "learners who have received no specific instruction in L2
pragmatics have noticeably different L2 pragmatic systems than NSs of the
L2. This is true for both production and comprehension" (Bardovi-Harlig,
2001, p. 29). Because teaching methodologies have a significant influence
on pragmatic and discourse knowledge and consequently communicative
147
English -Edu Vol.?, No.2, July 2007: 143-158
act performance as well as pragmatic and discourse transfer, there is a growing need for teaching pragmatics and discourse. According to Kasper and
Rose (200 1), there is "a strong indication that instructional intervention
may be facilitative to, or even necessary for, the acquisition of L2 pragmatic ability" (p. 8). Moreover, the self-learning process through exposure
to and noticing L2 pragmatic and discourse features in the L2 input may be
ineffective. It is thus highly recommended that L2 teachers provide pedagogical instruction in pragmatics and discourse in their teaching methodologies. Specifically, pragmatics and discourse should be integrated into
the English curricula in Vietnam.
Given that pragmatics and discourse teaching is included in L2 teaching curricula, the point is how to teach these components of language effectively. This can be achieved through the synergy of three elements with
which the L2 teachers should provide the learners. These are authentic input, assistance with L2 comprehension, and explicit instruction in pragmatics and discourse.
It is the teacher's responsibility to provide the learners and encourage them to expose themselves to authentic and representative L2 input
(Bardovi-Halig, 2001; Bouton, 1996; Boxer and Pickering, 1995; Rose, 1993,
1997). Since input is a source of learning, the learners can only benefit
from the input if it contains authentic pragmatic and discourse information.
Moreover, the L2 teacher should assist learners with comprehension
(Bardovi-Harlig, 2001) because input and instruction would not be effective if learners fail to understand them.
Perhaps the most helpful task that the L2 teacher should do to advance their students' pragmatic and discourse development is to explain L2
pragmatic and discourse rules explicitly. My previous research (Tran, 2004c,
2006a) indicated that explicit input or instruction apparently increased learners' awareness of how the communicative act of responding to compliments
is normally realized ip English, which inhibited pragmatic and discourse
transfer. The positive'effect and significance of explicit pedagogical intervention in pragmatics and discourse were confirmed by research on the
teaching and learning of these facets of language (Liddicoat and Crozet,
2001; Rose and K wai-fun, 2001; Takahashi, 2001; Tateyama, 2001; Y9shimi,
2001; etc.).
Adopting the explicit approach to teaching pragmatics and discourse,
teachers can both improve and activate learners' existing L2 pragmatic and
discourse knowledge. This is beneficial to the learners because although
they possess universal and L1 pragmatic and discourse knowledge, they
may not be able to put that knowledge to good use. Moreover, since L2
148
Pedagogicallmplic.:;tions of Findings About Pragmatic and Discourse Transfer (Giao Quynh Tran)
pragmatic and discourse development "can be facilitated by instruction,
particularly when that instruction is of an explicit nature" (Kasper and Rose,
2001, p. 121 ), it is necessary to not only teach pragmatics and discourse but
also provide explicit instruction in these components of language.
Explicit instruction in pragmatics and discourse is recommended also
because it brings pragmatic and discourse features in the input to learners'
notice, raises their consciousness of cross-cultural differences, improves
their L2 pragmatic and discourse knowledge and thereby counteracts pragmatic and discourse transfer. Consciousness at the level of noticing is essential to the learning ofL2 pragmatics and discourse. Therefore, consciousness-raising is influential in learners' acquisition of pragmatic and discourse
norms (Liddicoat and Crozet, 2001 ). Although consciousness-raising may
be achieved through implicit pedagogical intervention, it is only through
explicit teaching that learners' consciousness of pragmatic and discourse
features in the input is most effectively raised. Research (Takahashi, 2001)
has shown that input enhancement, which is a form of attention-drawing or
consciousness-raising, is most productive of acquisition of L2 pragmatic
features and that explicit instruction is "the explicit teaching condition
manifesting the highest degree of input enhancement" (p. 173). Accordingly, explicit instruction is the most effective way to raise consciousness
of pragmatic and discourse features in the input and thus enhance the learning of pragmatics and discourse.
Moreover, when explicit and implicit approaches to teaching pragmatics and discourse were compared (Rose and Kwai-fun, 2001; Tateyama,
2001; etc.), results consistently evidenced the superior effect of explicit
instruction. As found by Tateyama (200 1), explicit teaching leads to successful consciousness-raising and improvement in the acquisition of L2
pragmatic routines. When Rose and Kwai-fun (2001) compared these two
methods in the teaching of compliments and responses to compliments in
English to Cantonese speaking Chinese ESL students, they found that the
deductive approach produced "better results for both pragmalinguistics and
sociopragmatics" (p. 168). The inductive approach even negatively influenced sociopragmatic development. Rose and Kwai-fun (2001) explained
that it was because in the inductive teaching method, difficult matters were
raised without specific solutions so the learners were confused.
Results of my research together with the supporting evidence from
other studies discussed above reinforce the need for explicit instruction in
pragmatics and discourse in L2 teaching methodologies. Given that an explicit approach to teaching pragmatics and discourse is adopted, another
important question arises as to what to teach specifically. This is where the
149
English•Edu Vol.?, No.2, July 2007 143-158
fmdings about the nature and conditions of pragmatic and discourse transfer come into effect.
Based on the findings about the nature of pragmatic and discourse
transfer (See Tran, 2004c, 2006a), explicit instruction can address what
specific pragmatic and discourse features are transferred and how to raise
learners' consciousness and understanding of this phenomenon. Vietnamese learners of English, for example, should be explicitly informed about
what CR strategies were transferred by other Vietnamese speakers of English and why these strategies were more transferable than others (See Tran
2004c, 2006a). They should also receive explicit information about how
frequency of use of and combination of CR strategies are transferred in
Vietnamese-English interlanguage pragmatics so as to avoid pragmatic and
discourse transfer if they wish to. Emphasis can be placed on CR strategies
that are more likely to be transferred than others and the reason why. This
can also be applied to L2learners in general. Moreover, L2learners' awareness of cross-cultural differences between their L 1 and L2 communicative
act realization should be raised through explicit instruction in how and why
pragmatic and discourse norms concerning these communicative acts vary
across cultures. Such specific knowledge is useful for learners in their L2
performance in cross-cultural interaction. In addition, it is recommended
that explicit instruction in pragmatics and discourse should include conditions that facilitate or inhibit pragmatic and discourse transfer. Being conscious of such conditions, the learners can reinforce conditions that prevent
transfer and thereby refrain from transferring unintentionally.
Explicit instruction in pragmatics and discourse, however, should be
applied properly in order to avoid transfer of training. Although providing
explicit information about common CR strategies in the target language is
necessary, an emphasis on one strategy over others (e.g. the use of"Appreciation Token" in English CRs) "may encourage overuse of the formula"
(Bardovi-Harlig, 20011 p. 26). As a result of such transfer of training, learners may merely say ''Thank you" to all compliments in English without
realizing the social function of the compliments (i.e. a means of initiating a
conversation). Their brief CRs may discourage further social interaction
between the learners and NSs (Wolfson, 1989). Moreover, as suggested by
Bardovi-Harlig (200 1), "if a learner does not recognize the social function
of such speech acts, then she cannot hold up her end of the conversation in
response to such speech acts when other people use them" (p. 30). Therefore, it is important that social functions of communicative acts be incorporated into explicit instruction in pragmatics and discourse.
In addition, teaching the learners explicitly about strategies to real150
Pedagogical Implications of Findings About Pragmatic and Discourse Transfer (Giao Quynh Tran)
ize communicative acts in the target language needs tact because these strategies, which are also known as semantic formulas, are more "cultural" than
"linguistic" (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001, p. 31 ). Adopting the explicit approach
to teaching pragmatics and discourse, the L2 teacher should strike a delicate balance between instructing the learners and respecting their own choice.
While it is necessary to inform learners of the L2 pragmatic and discourse
norms, it is also advisable to let them decide on whether to adopt these
norms or not.1bis is particularly suggested for the teaching of sociopragmatics.
Unlike pragmalinguistics to which learners are more amenable,
sociopragmatics is a more sensitive issue because it manifests learners' "social (or even political, religious, or moral) judgement" (Thomas, 1983, p.
104). Although teachers should proceed with caution when teaching L2
pragmatics and discourse, it is still highly recommended that they provide
explicit instruction in these facets of language so that learners can make
informed decisions. As stated by Bardovi-Harlig (2001), "the adoption of
sociocultural rules as one's own in an L2 may have to be an individual
decision. Providing the information so that a learner can make that choice
is a pedagogical decision" (p. 32).
IMPLICATIONS FOR SPEAKERS OF DIFFERENT LANGUAGES
IN CROSS-CULTURAL INTERACTION
As discussed, L2 learners should improve their L2 pragmatic and
discourse knowledge in order to avoid miscommunication. Most
interlanguage pragmatics studies often conclude with the implication that
NNSs should familiarize themselves with L2 pragmatic and discourse rules.
However, NNSs' understanding of sociocultural norms underlying L2 pragmatics and discourse is not sufficient for effective cross-cultural interaction. NSs should also develop their cross-cultural pragmatic and discourse
awareness because it increases their understanding ofNNSs and tolerance
of the differences, which contribute significantly to the effectiveness of
cross-cultural interaction. Learning should take place in both directions.
A number of reasons justify the suggestion that NSs should also make
attempts to understand NNSs and not expect only the latter to do the learning task. One reason is concerned with unintentional pragmatic and discourse transfer. As found in Tran (2004c, 2006a), pragmatic and discourse
transfer can take place in the face of L2 pragmatic and discourse knowledge as a result of unmonitored speech or non-consciousness of the ongoing communicative act. 1bis was demonstrated through the Naturalized Roleplay (Tran 2004a, 2004c, 2006a, 2006b). So even ifL2 speakers possess L2
151
English •Edu Vo1.7, No.2, July 2007: 143-158
knowledge of pragmatics and discourse, they may still transfer unintentionally. In such instances, NSs' cross-cultural pragmatic and discourse
knowledge can prevent them from misinterpreting the NNSs and thus prevent miscommunication.
Another reason why NSs should improve their knowledge of other
cultures and norms of speech is that L2 speakers, despite having knowledge of the target language pragmatics and discourse, may choose to adhere to and transfer their native pragmatic and discourse norms to express
their cultural identity. Transfer might be intentional as a result of learners'
subjective choice (Tran, 2004c, 2006a). Presentation of self or cultural identity through subjective choice was identified by Bourne (1988), Siegal (1994,
1996), Peirce (1995), etc., and was found to be a cause of pragmatic and
discourse transfer (Al-Issa, 1998). Since learners can intentionally transfer
their L 1 pragmatics and discourse into their L2 use to express their loyalty
to and prideoftheir L1 cultural patterns (Al-Issa, 1998; Blum-Kulka, 1991)
as well as to distinguish their cultural identity from the dominant culture in
the L2 society (Blum-Kulka, 1991; Preston, 1989), pragmatic and discourse
transfer inspired by subjective choice is not a deficiency and does not need
treatment. It should be seen as a creative expression of identity because
"second language learners do not merely model native speakers with a desire to emulate, but rather actively create both a new interlanguage and an
accompanying identity in the learning process" (Siegal, 1996, pp. 362-363).
When intentional transfer happens, NSs with cross-cultural pragmatic
and discourse knowledge are more likely to interpret the NNSs' behavior or
language use properly and maintain effective communication than those
without that knowledge. It may be impossible to learn about every existing
culture in order to understand all NNSs of one's language, but it is sensible
of speakers of different languages to increase their cross-cultural pragmatic
and discourse awareness. Australians, for example, may not need to know
specifically about ho'f the Vietnamese respond to compliments but a general knowledge of ho\v this communicative act is often realized in Asian
cultures can prevent instances of misinterpretation that may arise when pragmatic and discourse transfer happens either accidentally or on purpose.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore recommended that not only NNSs but also NSs of different languages should be aware of cross-cultural differences in order to
avoid misinterpretation or misunderstanding and to excel effectiveness of
cross-cultural interaction. As modem societies have become multilingual
152
Pedagogical implications of Findings About Pragmatic and Discourse Transfer (Giao Quynh Tran)
and multicultural, cross-cultural pragmatic and discourse knowledge is advantageous to speakers of various languages. English NSs with knowledge
of cross-cultural pragmatics and discourse also gain an advantage over those
without this understanding because the number of speakers of English as
an L2 or foreign language will far exceed the English NS population and
play an important role in the global future ofEnglish (Jenkins, 2000; McKay,
2002).
In order to enhance cross-cultural pragmatic and discourse awareness, one can learn by noticing cross-cultural differences in such a source
of input as public education, the media or interaction with speakers from
other linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Moreover, cultural programs highlighting cultural diversity in the community should be encouraged on the
radio and television as well as in newspapers, books, communal activities,
etc. because they enhance mutual understanding which is the key to effective cross-cultural interaction.
REFERENCES
Al-Issa, A. S. (1998). Sociopragmatic transfer in the performance ofrefusals by Jordanian EFL learners: Evidence and motivating factors.
Unpublished PhD dissertation. Indiana University of Pennsylvania,
Indiana.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001 ). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for
instruction in pragmatics? InK. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13-32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in
pragmatic competence. In G. Kasper & S. Blum- Kulka (Eds.),
Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 43-57). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bialystok, E. (1994). 'Analysis and control in the development of second
language proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16,
157-168.
Billmyer, K. (1990). "I really like your lifestyle": ESL Learners learning
how to compliment. Working Papers In Educational Linguistics, 6(2),
31-48.
153
English •Edu Vol.7, No.2, July 2007: 143-158
Blum-Kulka, S. (1991 ). Interlanguage pragmatics: The Case of requests. In
R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith & M.
Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research (pp. 255272). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Bourne, J. (1988). Natural acquisition and masked pedagogy. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 83-99.
Bouton, L. (1996). Pragmatics and language learning. In L. Bouton (Ed.),
Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 7, pp. 1-20). UrbanaChampaign, lllinois: Division of English as an International Language, University of lllinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Boxer, D., & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in
ELT materials: The Case of complaints. ELTJournal, 49(1 ), 44-56.
DuFon, M. A. (2000). The Acquisition of negative responses to experience
questions in Indonesian as a second language by sojourners in naturalistic interaction. In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. Anderson, C. A. Klee
& E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language
acquisition (pp. 77-97). Somerville, Massachusetts: Cascadilla Press.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long
(Eds. ), The Handbook ofsecond language acquisition (pp. 224-255).
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Hassall, T. J. (1997). Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian. Unpublished Phb dissertation. Australian National University.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The Phonology ofEnglish as an international language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second language research, 8(3), 203-231.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2001 ). Pragmatics in language teaching. InK. R.
Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 1-9).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
154
Pedagogical Implications of Findings About Pragmatic and Discourse Transfer (Giao Quynh Tran)
Koike, D. A (1989). Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech
acts in interlanguage. Modern Language Journal, 73, 79-89.
Liddicoat, A. J., & Crozet, C. (200 1). Acquiring French interactional norms
through instruction. InK. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds. ), Pragmatics in
language teaching(pp. 125-144). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Long, M. H. (1996). The Role ofthe linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook
ofsecond language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic
Press.
McKay, S. (2002). Teaching English as an international language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Nierzgoda, K., & Roever, C. (2001). Pragmatic and grammatical awareness: A function of the learning environment? InK. R. Rose & G.
Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 63-79). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment and language learning.
TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9-31.
Preston, D. R. (1989). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Rose, K. R. (1993). Sociolinguistic consciousness-raising through video.
Language Teacher, 17, 7-9.
Rose, K. R. ( 1997). Pragmatics in the classroom: Theoretical concerns and
practical possibilities. In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language
learning (Vol. 8, pp. 267-295). Urbana-Champaign, lllinois: Division of English as an International Language, University of lllinois
at Urbana-Champaign.
Rose, K. R. (2001). Compliments and compliment responses in film: Implications for pragmatics research and language teaching. International
Review ofApplied Linguistics, 39, 309-326.
155
English •Edu Vol7. No.2. July 2007 143-158
Rose, K. R., & Kwai-fun, C. N. (200l).lnductlve and deductive teaching of
compliments and compliment responses. InK. R. Rose & G. Kasper
(Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 145-170). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Schmtdl, R. \ 1990). The Role of consciousness m second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Schmidt, R. (1993a). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-226.
Schmidt, R. (1993b). Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum- Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21-42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R. ( 1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious. InN.
Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning oflanguages (pp. 165-209).
London: Academic Press.
Schmidt, R. ( 1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A Tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt
(Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 163). Hawaii: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center,
University of Hawaii.
Schmidt, R. (1998). Attention. University of Hawaii Working Papers in
ESL, 15, 1-34.
Schmidt, R. (200 1). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second
language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University
f
Press.
Siegal, M. ( 1994). Looking East: Learning Japanese as a second language in
Japan and the interaction of race, gender and social context. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.
Siegal, M. (1996). The Role of learner subjectivity in second language
sociolinguistic competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 356-382.
156
Pedagogical Implications of Findings About Pragmatic and Discourse Transfer (Giao •,juynh Tran)
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M.
Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.
235-253). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning.
In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds. ), Principle and practice in applied
linguistics: Studies in honour of H G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A Step toward second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning:
Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337.
Takahashi, S. (200 1). The Role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic
competence. InK. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds. ), Pragmatics in language
teaching (pp. 171-199). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tateyama, Y (200 1). Explicit and implicit teaching ofpragmatic routines: Japanese sumimasen. InK. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 200-222). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4,
91-112.
Tran, G. Q. (2003a). Pragmatics at a glance. English.Edu: Journal ofLanguage Teaching and Research, 2(1), 1-12.
Tran, G. Q. (2003b). Transfer and universality in interlanguage pragmatics.
Melbourne Papers in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, 3(1 ), 42-56.
Tran, G. Q. (2004a). An Innovative approach to cross-cultural and
interlanguage pragmatics research using Naturalized Role-play:
Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics
2004 Conference, Portland Marriott Downtown Waterfront, Portland,
Oregon, 1-4 May 2004.
157
Tran, G. Q. (2004b). Tenninology in interlanguage pragmatics tTL Review
ofApplied Linguistics, 143-144, 109-120.
Iran, G. Q. (2004c ). The Nature and conditions ofpragmatic and discourse
transfer in cross-cultural interaction investigated through Naturalized Role-play. Unpublished PhD dissertation. The University ot
Melbourne.
Iran, G. Q. (2006a). The Nature and conditions ofpragmatic and discourse
transfer investigated through Naturalized Role-play. Muenchen:
Lincom Europa.
Iran, G. Q. (2006b). The Naturalized Role-play: An Innovative methodology in cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics research. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 5(2), l-24. Available at: http://
www.nus.edu.sg/celc/publications/reltVol52.htm
Wolfson, N. (1989). The Social dynamics of native and nonnative variation
in complimenting behavior. In M. R. Eisenstein (Ed.), The Dynamic
interlanguage (pp. 219-236). New York: Plenum.
Yoshimi, D. R. (2001 ). Explicit instruction and JFL learners' use of interactional discourse markers. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 223-244). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
J
J
;s8
ABOUT PRAGMATIC AND DISCOURSE TRANSFER
FOR L2 LEARNERS AND ｔｅａｃｈｊｾＮｓ＠
Giao Quynb Tran
The University of Melbourne
[email protected]
j
Abstract
of
Pragmatic and discourse transfer herein refers to the ｩｮｦｬｵ･｣ｾ＠
first language (Ll) and culture on second language (L2) performance.
In my previous research (Iran, 2004c, 2006a), I found a number of
conditions of pragmatic and discourse transfer, which are factors necessary for pragmatic and discourse transfer to take place. In this paper, I will discuses several pedagogical implications of fmdings about
conditions of pragmatic and discourse transfer for L2 learners and
teachers.
tlie
Key words: pragmatics, discourse transfer, cross-cultural interaction.
INTRODUCTION
My previous research (Tran, 2004c, 2006a) showed that Vietnamese
learners of English transferred the Ll frequency of use and combination of
compliment response (CR) strategies into their L2 performance. When responding to a compliment, the Vietnamese normally neither use nor include an "Appreciation Token" in their CRs. They tend to deny or downplay
the compliment instead. CRs by Vietnamese speakers of English exhibited
this tendency as a result of pragmatic and discourse transfer. It is acknowledged that pragmatic and discourse transfer does not always cause miscommunication because '"negative' transfer equals 'difference from L2',
but 'difference from L2 equals miscommunication' is a non sequitur"
(Kasper 1992, p. 221 ). However, although the Vietnamese speakers' intention was to be modest and polite to the other interlocutor, some Australians
failed to perceive it as such. For example, one third of the Australian English speakers interviewed perceived CRs which exhibited pragmatic and
discourse transfer by the Vietnamese interlocutors as an expression of discomfort, lack of confidence and/or absence of trust in the sincerity of compliments. On the contrary, Vietnamese speakers of English reported having
143
English-EduVol.7, No.2, July2007: 143-158
experienced none of the above. So although pragmatic and discourse transfer did not cause a breakdown in communication, it led to the NSs'
misperception, which is also a consequence of miscommunication, of the
L2 speakers.
In order to prevent such instances of misunderstanding in cross-cultural interaction, the learners need to know about cross-cultural differences
between the L1 and L2 as well as the L2 norms in realizing communicative
acts. L2 speakers in this study were at the advanced level ofL2 proficiency
but they still transferred their L 1 pragmatic and discourse norms into their
L2 performance. Therefore, cross-cultural differences and L2 pragmatics
and discourse need to be learnt and taught. The question is how to do so.
EXPOSURE AND NOTICING ASASOURCEOFLEARNING
As found in my previous research (Tran, 2004c, 2006a), one of the
conditions that can inhibit pragmatic and discourse transfer is exposure.
Exposure in the senses of length of stay in the target language country and
amount of input seems to be able to reduce transfer. This implies that the L2
learners should actively increase their exposure to the L2. While it is not
always feasible to learn an L2 in the target country, it is possible to increase
the amount ofL2 input one is exposed to. Moreover, long duration of stay
in the L2 country does not necessarily entail improvement of L2 proficiency and pragmatic and discourse knowledge. So learners should engage
in activities that enhance their exposure to the L2 input because "without
input, acquisition cannot take place" (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001, p. 31 ). L2learners in the target country, for instance Vietnamese ESL learners in Australia,
should make full use of their learning environment to expose themselves to
the target language in communication in order to advance not only their L2
proficiency but also their L2 pragmatic and discourse knowledge. Although
those who learn an Li in their native country, for example Vietnamese EFL
learners in Vietnam/may use textbooks as a source of learning about L2
pragmatics and discourse, it is not recommended because "in general, textbooks cannot be counted on as a reliable source of pragmatic input for
classroom language learners" (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001, p. 25). Instead, EFL
learners can increase their exposure to the L2 media.
The L2 media is a useful source ofL2 pragmatic and discourse input
for both L2 learners in their home country and those in the target language
country. As Rose (2001) compared compliments and CRs from forty American contemporary films and naturally occurring ones, he found that "film
data corresponds fairly closely to authentic data. particularly for major
144
Pedagogical Implications of Findings About Pragmatic and Discourse Transfer (Giao Quynh Tran)
pragmalinguistic categories" (p. 321). Film data was found to be more representative of authentic speech pragmalinguistically than sociopragmatically.
Although the media in general or films in particular do not complete the
source of L2 pragmatic and discourse input, they contribute considerably
to the enrichment and accessibility of this source.
Increased exposure to the L2 input alone, however, is not sufficient.
The learners can hardly acquire L2 knowledge by being merely passively
exposed to the L2 input. Input needs to be processed and there have been
cognitive perspectives on input processing. Gass (2003) remarked that
The important role of input has not diminished over the years; what has
changed, however, is the conceptualization of how individuals process the
input and how the input interacts with the mental capacities of those learning
a language (first or second) (p. 229).
In order for input to be processed efficiently or to have a role in
learning, learners need to notice information to be acquired in the input.
According to the Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990, 1993a, 1993b, 1994,
1995, 2001 ), input becomes intake, which is what the learners actually know
and can use, only when they notice it. Noticing "is the necessary and sufficient condition for the conversion of input into intake" (Schmidt, 1993a, p.
209). Schmidt's strong claim that there is no learning without attention was
challenged by Gass (1997) and Schachter et al. (cited in Gass, 2003). However, it is generally accepted that selective attention plays a significant role
in language learning. Long's Interaction Hypothesis (1996), which says that
negotiation of meaning in interaction between NSs and non-native speakers (NNSs) and between NNSs facilitates language acquisition, highlights
the role of selective attention. Gass (1997) also considered such attention
as "one of the crucial mechanisms" in input processing (p. 132). So Schmidt
(1998, 2001) modified his assertion and later acknowledged that learning
may take place without learners' awareness but such learning does not make
a major contribution to L2 learning.
When applying the notion of attention, also known as noticing, to L2
pragmatic development, Schmidt (1993) affirmed that
For the learning of pragmatics in a second language, attention to linguistic
fonns, functional meanings, and the relevant contextual features is required.
I also claim that learners experience their learning, that attention is subjectively experienced as noticing, and that the attentional threshold for noticing
is the same as the threshold for learning (p. 35).
Schmidt's (1993a, 1993b, 1995, 1998, 2001) application of the Noticing Hypothesis to the acquisition of L2 pragmatics was supported by
145
English•Edu Vol.?, No.2, July 2007: 143-158
DuFon (2000). According to them, the learners can gain L2 pragmatic and
discourse knowledge through exposure to the L2 if they attend to and notice pragmatic and discourse features in the L2 input. When the learners
consciously process L2 pragmatic and discourse information, "environment
may not be the most important factor accounting for learners' pragmatic
awareness" and "both EFLand ESL learners were aware of pragmatic infelicities" (Niezgoda and Roever, 2001, p. 76). It is thus important that the L2
learners observe and take notice of how differently communicative acts are
realized in the L1 and L2 cultures as well as what pragmatic and discourse
norms normally govern the performance ofL2 communicative acts. Sociocultural knowledge can also be increased by noticing how sociocultural
norms are expressed and practised cross-culturally.
This type of conscious noticing turns proficiency from potentially
facilitating transfer to being capable of preventing it. Advanced proficiency
is a facilitative condition of pragmatic and discourse transfer because the
learners have the L2 tool to realize transfer. However, if the learners consciously notice pragmatic and discourse features in the input they are exposed to, their L2 proficiency boosts comprehension of the L2 input and, as
a result, enhances their L2 pragmatic competence. Accordingly, pragmatic
and discourse transfer can be reduced.
Exposure to and noticing the L2, however, is not the only source of
learning. Besides instruction in the classroom, the learners should also utilize the source of knowledge that they process, together with their universal
and L 1 pragmatic and discourse knowledge. According to Bialystok's ( 1993,
1994) two-dimensional model of L2 proficiency development, in the case
of adult learners, the development of pragmatic knowledge has been mostly
achieved. This prediction was supported by Koike (1989) and Hassall (1997).
Unlike children acquiring their mother tongue, "adult learners get a considerable amount of L2 pragmatic knowledge for free. This is because some
pragmatic knowledgejs universal" (Kasper and Rose, 2001, p. 4 ). So learners come to the L2 ldnning process with available universal and Ll pragmatic and discourse knowledge which they can rely on. However, this does
not mean that the learners should transfer the total system of pragmatics
and discourse in their Ll into their L2, because not all of the L1 pragmatic
and discourse features are transferable. It just means that they can apply
what, at least to their perception, may be applied across cultures.
It should also be noted that learning greatly benefits from and is most
useful in practice. Frequent practice enhances the automatization and acquisition of pragmatic and discourse knowledge. Moreover, ample practice
means increased output, and output (i.e. language production or use) is es146
Pedagogical Implications of Findif19S About Pragmatic ;,nd Discourse Transier (Giao Quynh Tran)
sential to language development (Swain 1985, 1995; Swain and Lapkin,
1995, 1998). Although Swain's argument for the need for output was based
on syntax and morphology, it can reasonably be applied to other domains of
language including pragmatics and discourse. Therefore, learners should
also actively take part in interaction with a diversity of speakers to put both
their L2 skills and their cross-cultural knowledge to use, thereby improving
and maintaining both.
So on the L2 learners' part, they can develop their knowledge of
cross-cultural differences and L2 pragmatics and discourse by actively increasing exposure to the L2 and noticing L2 pragmatic and discourse features in the input. However, not all learners are good at detecting crosscultural differences or noticing salient L2 pragmatic and discourse features.
Moreover, the learning task becomes more difficult for adult learners because NSs, although being possibly willing to indicate learners' linguistic
failure to help them improve their L2, rarely point out learners' pragmatic
failure. Nor do NSs provide them with the feedback as to what is considered appropriate or polite in the L2 culture. Therefore, on the L2 teachers'
part, they should bring this type of knowledge to the learners' notice in
order to assist them in their L2 pragmatic development.
EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION IN PRAGMATICS AND DISCOURSE
Although the essential role of pedagogical instruction in such L2
linguistic components as grammar, vocabulary, phonology and so on has
long been established, the need for L2 pragmatics and discourse teaching
has not yet been as widely recognized. Indeed, pragmatic and discourse
instruction is crucial to the acquisition ofL2 pragmatics and discourse. As
found in Tran (2004c, 2006a), instruction in pragmatics and discourse in
teaching methodologies can develop learners' L2 pragmatic and discourse
knowledge and thus prevent pragmatic and discourse transfer. This finding
is supported by previous research by Billmyer (1990). She found that Japanese learners of English who received formal instruction in American English norms of complimenting produced more native-like compliments and
CRs than those who did not. Bardovi-Harlig's (200 1) review of research
into instruction in pragmatics up to date also lends support to this finding.
She found that "learners who have received no specific instruction in L2
pragmatics have noticeably different L2 pragmatic systems than NSs of the
L2. This is true for both production and comprehension" (Bardovi-Harlig,
2001, p. 29). Because teaching methodologies have a significant influence
on pragmatic and discourse knowledge and consequently communicative
147
English -Edu Vol.?, No.2, July 2007: 143-158
act performance as well as pragmatic and discourse transfer, there is a growing need for teaching pragmatics and discourse. According to Kasper and
Rose (200 1), there is "a strong indication that instructional intervention
may be facilitative to, or even necessary for, the acquisition of L2 pragmatic ability" (p. 8). Moreover, the self-learning process through exposure
to and noticing L2 pragmatic and discourse features in the L2 input may be
ineffective. It is thus highly recommended that L2 teachers provide pedagogical instruction in pragmatics and discourse in their teaching methodologies. Specifically, pragmatics and discourse should be integrated into
the English curricula in Vietnam.
Given that pragmatics and discourse teaching is included in L2 teaching curricula, the point is how to teach these components of language effectively. This can be achieved through the synergy of three elements with
which the L2 teachers should provide the learners. These are authentic input, assistance with L2 comprehension, and explicit instruction in pragmatics and discourse.
It is the teacher's responsibility to provide the learners and encourage them to expose themselves to authentic and representative L2 input
(Bardovi-Halig, 2001; Bouton, 1996; Boxer and Pickering, 1995; Rose, 1993,
1997). Since input is a source of learning, the learners can only benefit
from the input if it contains authentic pragmatic and discourse information.
Moreover, the L2 teacher should assist learners with comprehension
(Bardovi-Harlig, 2001) because input and instruction would not be effective if learners fail to understand them.
Perhaps the most helpful task that the L2 teacher should do to advance their students' pragmatic and discourse development is to explain L2
pragmatic and discourse rules explicitly. My previous research (Tran, 2004c,
2006a) indicated that explicit input or instruction apparently increased learners' awareness of how the communicative act of responding to compliments
is normally realized ip English, which inhibited pragmatic and discourse
transfer. The positive'effect and significance of explicit pedagogical intervention in pragmatics and discourse were confirmed by research on the
teaching and learning of these facets of language (Liddicoat and Crozet,
2001; Rose and K wai-fun, 2001; Takahashi, 2001; Tateyama, 2001; Y9shimi,
2001; etc.).
Adopting the explicit approach to teaching pragmatics and discourse,
teachers can both improve and activate learners' existing L2 pragmatic and
discourse knowledge. This is beneficial to the learners because although
they possess universal and L1 pragmatic and discourse knowledge, they
may not be able to put that knowledge to good use. Moreover, since L2
148
Pedagogicallmplic.:;tions of Findings About Pragmatic and Discourse Transfer (Giao Quynh Tran)
pragmatic and discourse development "can be facilitated by instruction,
particularly when that instruction is of an explicit nature" (Kasper and Rose,
2001, p. 121 ), it is necessary to not only teach pragmatics and discourse but
also provide explicit instruction in these components of language.
Explicit instruction in pragmatics and discourse is recommended also
because it brings pragmatic and discourse features in the input to learners'
notice, raises their consciousness of cross-cultural differences, improves
their L2 pragmatic and discourse knowledge and thereby counteracts pragmatic and discourse transfer. Consciousness at the level of noticing is essential to the learning ofL2 pragmatics and discourse. Therefore, consciousness-raising is influential in learners' acquisition of pragmatic and discourse
norms (Liddicoat and Crozet, 2001 ). Although consciousness-raising may
be achieved through implicit pedagogical intervention, it is only through
explicit teaching that learners' consciousness of pragmatic and discourse
features in the input is most effectively raised. Research (Takahashi, 2001)
has shown that input enhancement, which is a form of attention-drawing or
consciousness-raising, is most productive of acquisition of L2 pragmatic
features and that explicit instruction is "the explicit teaching condition
manifesting the highest degree of input enhancement" (p. 173). Accordingly, explicit instruction is the most effective way to raise consciousness
of pragmatic and discourse features in the input and thus enhance the learning of pragmatics and discourse.
Moreover, when explicit and implicit approaches to teaching pragmatics and discourse were compared (Rose and Kwai-fun, 2001; Tateyama,
2001; etc.), results consistently evidenced the superior effect of explicit
instruction. As found by Tateyama (200 1), explicit teaching leads to successful consciousness-raising and improvement in the acquisition of L2
pragmatic routines. When Rose and Kwai-fun (2001) compared these two
methods in the teaching of compliments and responses to compliments in
English to Cantonese speaking Chinese ESL students, they found that the
deductive approach produced "better results for both pragmalinguistics and
sociopragmatics" (p. 168). The inductive approach even negatively influenced sociopragmatic development. Rose and Kwai-fun (2001) explained
that it was because in the inductive teaching method, difficult matters were
raised without specific solutions so the learners were confused.
Results of my research together with the supporting evidence from
other studies discussed above reinforce the need for explicit instruction in
pragmatics and discourse in L2 teaching methodologies. Given that an explicit approach to teaching pragmatics and discourse is adopted, another
important question arises as to what to teach specifically. This is where the
149
English•Edu Vol.?, No.2, July 2007 143-158
fmdings about the nature and conditions of pragmatic and discourse transfer come into effect.
Based on the findings about the nature of pragmatic and discourse
transfer (See Tran, 2004c, 2006a), explicit instruction can address what
specific pragmatic and discourse features are transferred and how to raise
learners' consciousness and understanding of this phenomenon. Vietnamese learners of English, for example, should be explicitly informed about
what CR strategies were transferred by other Vietnamese speakers of English and why these strategies were more transferable than others (See Tran
2004c, 2006a). They should also receive explicit information about how
frequency of use of and combination of CR strategies are transferred in
Vietnamese-English interlanguage pragmatics so as to avoid pragmatic and
discourse transfer if they wish to. Emphasis can be placed on CR strategies
that are more likely to be transferred than others and the reason why. This
can also be applied to L2learners in general. Moreover, L2learners' awareness of cross-cultural differences between their L 1 and L2 communicative
act realization should be raised through explicit instruction in how and why
pragmatic and discourse norms concerning these communicative acts vary
across cultures. Such specific knowledge is useful for learners in their L2
performance in cross-cultural interaction. In addition, it is recommended
that explicit instruction in pragmatics and discourse should include conditions that facilitate or inhibit pragmatic and discourse transfer. Being conscious of such conditions, the learners can reinforce conditions that prevent
transfer and thereby refrain from transferring unintentionally.
Explicit instruction in pragmatics and discourse, however, should be
applied properly in order to avoid transfer of training. Although providing
explicit information about common CR strategies in the target language is
necessary, an emphasis on one strategy over others (e.g. the use of"Appreciation Token" in English CRs) "may encourage overuse of the formula"
(Bardovi-Harlig, 20011 p. 26). As a result of such transfer of training, learners may merely say ''Thank you" to all compliments in English without
realizing the social function of the compliments (i.e. a means of initiating a
conversation). Their brief CRs may discourage further social interaction
between the learners and NSs (Wolfson, 1989). Moreover, as suggested by
Bardovi-Harlig (200 1), "if a learner does not recognize the social function
of such speech acts, then she cannot hold up her end of the conversation in
response to such speech acts when other people use them" (p. 30). Therefore, it is important that social functions of communicative acts be incorporated into explicit instruction in pragmatics and discourse.
In addition, teaching the learners explicitly about strategies to real150
Pedagogical Implications of Findings About Pragmatic and Discourse Transfer (Giao Quynh Tran)
ize communicative acts in the target language needs tact because these strategies, which are also known as semantic formulas, are more "cultural" than
"linguistic" (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001, p. 31 ). Adopting the explicit approach
to teaching pragmatics and discourse, the L2 teacher should strike a delicate balance between instructing the learners and respecting their own choice.
While it is necessary to inform learners of the L2 pragmatic and discourse
norms, it is also advisable to let them decide on whether to adopt these
norms or not.1bis is particularly suggested for the teaching of sociopragmatics.
Unlike pragmalinguistics to which learners are more amenable,
sociopragmatics is a more sensitive issue because it manifests learners' "social (or even political, religious, or moral) judgement" (Thomas, 1983, p.
104). Although teachers should proceed with caution when teaching L2
pragmatics and discourse, it is still highly recommended that they provide
explicit instruction in these facets of language so that learners can make
informed decisions. As stated by Bardovi-Harlig (2001), "the adoption of
sociocultural rules as one's own in an L2 may have to be an individual
decision. Providing the information so that a learner can make that choice
is a pedagogical decision" (p. 32).
IMPLICATIONS FOR SPEAKERS OF DIFFERENT LANGUAGES
IN CROSS-CULTURAL INTERACTION
As discussed, L2 learners should improve their L2 pragmatic and
discourse knowledge in order to avoid miscommunication. Most
interlanguage pragmatics studies often conclude with the implication that
NNSs should familiarize themselves with L2 pragmatic and discourse rules.
However, NNSs' understanding of sociocultural norms underlying L2 pragmatics and discourse is not sufficient for effective cross-cultural interaction. NSs should also develop their cross-cultural pragmatic and discourse
awareness because it increases their understanding ofNNSs and tolerance
of the differences, which contribute significantly to the effectiveness of
cross-cultural interaction. Learning should take place in both directions.
A number of reasons justify the suggestion that NSs should also make
attempts to understand NNSs and not expect only the latter to do the learning task. One reason is concerned with unintentional pragmatic and discourse transfer. As found in Tran (2004c, 2006a), pragmatic and discourse
transfer can take place in the face of L2 pragmatic and discourse knowledge as a result of unmonitored speech or non-consciousness of the ongoing communicative act. 1bis was demonstrated through the Naturalized Roleplay (Tran 2004a, 2004c, 2006a, 2006b). So even ifL2 speakers possess L2
151
English •Edu Vo1.7, No.2, July 2007: 143-158
knowledge of pragmatics and discourse, they may still transfer unintentionally. In such instances, NSs' cross-cultural pragmatic and discourse
knowledge can prevent them from misinterpreting the NNSs and thus prevent miscommunication.
Another reason why NSs should improve their knowledge of other
cultures and norms of speech is that L2 speakers, despite having knowledge of the target language pragmatics and discourse, may choose to adhere to and transfer their native pragmatic and discourse norms to express
their cultural identity. Transfer might be intentional as a result of learners'
subjective choice (Tran, 2004c, 2006a). Presentation of self or cultural identity through subjective choice was identified by Bourne (1988), Siegal (1994,
1996), Peirce (1995), etc., and was found to be a cause of pragmatic and
discourse transfer (Al-Issa, 1998). Since learners can intentionally transfer
their L 1 pragmatics and discourse into their L2 use to express their loyalty
to and prideoftheir L1 cultural patterns (Al-Issa, 1998; Blum-Kulka, 1991)
as well as to distinguish their cultural identity from the dominant culture in
the L2 society (Blum-Kulka, 1991; Preston, 1989), pragmatic and discourse
transfer inspired by subjective choice is not a deficiency and does not need
treatment. It should be seen as a creative expression of identity because
"second language learners do not merely model native speakers with a desire to emulate, but rather actively create both a new interlanguage and an
accompanying identity in the learning process" (Siegal, 1996, pp. 362-363).
When intentional transfer happens, NSs with cross-cultural pragmatic
and discourse knowledge are more likely to interpret the NNSs' behavior or
language use properly and maintain effective communication than those
without that knowledge. It may be impossible to learn about every existing
culture in order to understand all NNSs of one's language, but it is sensible
of speakers of different languages to increase their cross-cultural pragmatic
and discourse awareness. Australians, for example, may not need to know
specifically about ho'f the Vietnamese respond to compliments but a general knowledge of ho\v this communicative act is often realized in Asian
cultures can prevent instances of misinterpretation that may arise when pragmatic and discourse transfer happens either accidentally or on purpose.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore recommended that not only NNSs but also NSs of different languages should be aware of cross-cultural differences in order to
avoid misinterpretation or misunderstanding and to excel effectiveness of
cross-cultural interaction. As modem societies have become multilingual
152
Pedagogical implications of Findings About Pragmatic and Discourse Transfer (Giao Quynh Tran)
and multicultural, cross-cultural pragmatic and discourse knowledge is advantageous to speakers of various languages. English NSs with knowledge
of cross-cultural pragmatics and discourse also gain an advantage over those
without this understanding because the number of speakers of English as
an L2 or foreign language will far exceed the English NS population and
play an important role in the global future ofEnglish (Jenkins, 2000; McKay,
2002).
In order to enhance cross-cultural pragmatic and discourse awareness, one can learn by noticing cross-cultural differences in such a source
of input as public education, the media or interaction with speakers from
other linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Moreover, cultural programs highlighting cultural diversity in the community should be encouraged on the
radio and television as well as in newspapers, books, communal activities,
etc. because they enhance mutual understanding which is the key to effective cross-cultural interaction.
REFERENCES
Al-Issa, A. S. (1998). Sociopragmatic transfer in the performance ofrefusals by Jordanian EFL learners: Evidence and motivating factors.
Unpublished PhD dissertation. Indiana University of Pennsylvania,
Indiana.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001 ). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for
instruction in pragmatics? InK. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13-32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in
pragmatic competence. In G. Kasper & S. Blum- Kulka (Eds.),
Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 43-57). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bialystok, E. (1994). 'Analysis and control in the development of second
language proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16,
157-168.
Billmyer, K. (1990). "I really like your lifestyle": ESL Learners learning
how to compliment. Working Papers In Educational Linguistics, 6(2),
31-48.
153
English •Edu Vol.7, No.2, July 2007: 143-158
Blum-Kulka, S. (1991 ). Interlanguage pragmatics: The Case of requests. In
R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith & M.
Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research (pp. 255272). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Bourne, J. (1988). Natural acquisition and masked pedagogy. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 83-99.
Bouton, L. (1996). Pragmatics and language learning. In L. Bouton (Ed.),
Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 7, pp. 1-20). UrbanaChampaign, lllinois: Division of English as an International Language, University of lllinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Boxer, D., & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in
ELT materials: The Case of complaints. ELTJournal, 49(1 ), 44-56.
DuFon, M. A. (2000). The Acquisition of negative responses to experience
questions in Indonesian as a second language by sojourners in naturalistic interaction. In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. Anderson, C. A. Klee
& E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language
acquisition (pp. 77-97). Somerville, Massachusetts: Cascadilla Press.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long
(Eds. ), The Handbook ofsecond language acquisition (pp. 224-255).
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Hassall, T. J. (1997). Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian. Unpublished Phb dissertation. Australian National University.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The Phonology ofEnglish as an international language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second language research, 8(3), 203-231.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2001 ). Pragmatics in language teaching. InK. R.
Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 1-9).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
154
Pedagogical Implications of Findings About Pragmatic and Discourse Transfer (Giao Quynh Tran)
Koike, D. A (1989). Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech
acts in interlanguage. Modern Language Journal, 73, 79-89.
Liddicoat, A. J., & Crozet, C. (200 1). Acquiring French interactional norms
through instruction. InK. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds. ), Pragmatics in
language teaching(pp. 125-144). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Long, M. H. (1996). The Role ofthe linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook
ofsecond language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic
Press.
McKay, S. (2002). Teaching English as an international language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Nierzgoda, K., & Roever, C. (2001). Pragmatic and grammatical awareness: A function of the learning environment? InK. R. Rose & G.
Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 63-79). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment and language learning.
TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9-31.
Preston, D. R. (1989). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Rose, K. R. (1993). Sociolinguistic consciousness-raising through video.
Language Teacher, 17, 7-9.
Rose, K. R. ( 1997). Pragmatics in the classroom: Theoretical concerns and
practical possibilities. In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language
learning (Vol. 8, pp. 267-295). Urbana-Champaign, lllinois: Division of English as an International Language, University of lllinois
at Urbana-Champaign.
Rose, K. R. (2001). Compliments and compliment responses in film: Implications for pragmatics research and language teaching. International
Review ofApplied Linguistics, 39, 309-326.
155
English •Edu Vol7. No.2. July 2007 143-158
Rose, K. R., & Kwai-fun, C. N. (200l).lnductlve and deductive teaching of
compliments and compliment responses. InK. R. Rose & G. Kasper
(Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 145-170). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Schmtdl, R. \ 1990). The Role of consciousness m second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Schmidt, R. (1993a). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-226.
Schmidt, R. (1993b). Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum- Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21-42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R. ( 1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious. InN.
Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning oflanguages (pp. 165-209).
London: Academic Press.
Schmidt, R. ( 1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A Tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt
(Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 163). Hawaii: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center,
University of Hawaii.
Schmidt, R. (1998). Attention. University of Hawaii Working Papers in
ESL, 15, 1-34.
Schmidt, R. (200 1). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second
language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University
f
Press.
Siegal, M. ( 1994). Looking East: Learning Japanese as a second language in
Japan and the interaction of race, gender and social context. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.
Siegal, M. (1996). The Role of learner subjectivity in second language
sociolinguistic competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 356-382.
156
Pedagogical Implications of Findings About Pragmatic and Discourse Transfer (Giao •,juynh Tran)
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M.
Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.
235-253). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning.
In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds. ), Principle and practice in applied
linguistics: Studies in honour of H G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A Step toward second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning:
Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337.
Takahashi, S. (200 1). The Role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic
competence. InK. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds. ), Pragmatics in language
teaching (pp. 171-199). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tateyama, Y (200 1). Explicit and implicit teaching ofpragmatic routines: Japanese sumimasen. InK. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 200-222). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4,
91-112.
Tran, G. Q. (2003a). Pragmatics at a glance. English.Edu: Journal ofLanguage Teaching and Research, 2(1), 1-12.
Tran, G. Q. (2003b). Transfer and universality in interlanguage pragmatics.
Melbourne Papers in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, 3(1 ), 42-56.
Tran, G. Q. (2004a). An Innovative approach to cross-cultural and
interlanguage pragmatics research using Naturalized Role-play:
Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics
2004 Conference, Portland Marriott Downtown Waterfront, Portland,
Oregon, 1-4 May 2004.
157
Tran, G. Q. (2004b). Tenninology in interlanguage pragmatics tTL Review
ofApplied Linguistics, 143-144, 109-120.
Iran, G. Q. (2004c ). The Nature and conditions ofpragmatic and discourse
transfer in cross-cultural interaction investigated through Naturalized Role-play. Unpublished PhD dissertation. The University ot
Melbourne.
Iran, G. Q. (2006a). The Nature and conditions ofpragmatic and discourse
transfer investigated through Naturalized Role-play. Muenchen:
Lincom Europa.
Iran, G. Q. (2006b). The Naturalized Role-play: An Innovative methodology in cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics research. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 5(2), l-24. Available at: http://
www.nus.edu.sg/celc/publications/reltVol52.htm
Wolfson, N. (1989). The Social dynamics of native and nonnative variation
in complimenting behavior. In M. R. Eisenstein (Ed.), The Dynamic
interlanguage (pp. 219-236). New York: Plenum.
Yoshimi, D. R. (2001 ). Explicit instruction and JFL learners' use of interactional discourse markers. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 223-244). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
J
J
;s8